We'll never have a stateless society because the majority of people simply cannot keep their noses out of other people's business, and covet power and control over others, and want to live at the expense of others, and fear anyone who's different from them, or anything they're unfamiliar with, so want to force others into their own likeness, their own lifestyles, their own belief systems.
Thus, the tool of the state, a convenient means to those ends.
"People won't become free once the state ends; the state will end once people become free."
Butler Shaffer
Friday, December 23, 2016
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Which Way Do You Run?
Among the ironies in this video, people around the world view the US as the greatest threat to peace; voted three times more dangerous than any other country. The data confirm this conclusion:
*These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men.
*The US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis.
Lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression is all the evidence necessary for US military to refuse all war orders (there are no lawful orders for unlawful war), and for officers to arrest those who issue them.
Click here
Lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression is all the evidence necessary for US military to refuse all war orders (there are no lawful orders for unlawful war), and for officers to arrest those who issue them.
Click here
Thursday, November 10, 2016
This wasn’t an election. It was a revolution.
It’s midnight in America. The day before fifty million Americans got up and stood in front of the great iron wheel that had been grinding them down. They stood there even though the media told them it was useless. They took their stand even while all the chattering classes laughed and taunted them.
They were fathers who couldn’t feed their families anymore. They were mothers who couldn’t afford health care. They were workers whose jobs had been sold off to foreign countries. They were sons who didn’t see a future for themselves. They were daughters afraid of being murdered by the “unaccompanied minors” flooding into their towns. They took a deep breath and they stood.
They held up their hands and the great iron wheel stopped.
The Great Blue Wall crumbled. The impossible states fell one by one. Ohio. Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. Iowa. The white working class that had been overlooked and trampled on for so long got to its feet. It rose up against its oppressors and the rest of the nation, from coast to coast, rose up with it.
They fought back against their jobs being shipped overseas while their towns filled with migrants that got everything while they got nothing. They fought back against a system in which they could go to jail for a trifle while the elites could violate the law and still stroll through a presidential election. They fought back against being told that they had to watch what they say. They fought back against being held in contempt because they wanted to work for a living and take care of their families.
They fought and they won.
This wasn’t a vote. It was an uprising. Like the ordinary men chipping away at the Berlin Wall, they tore down an unnatural thing that had towered over them. And as they watched it fall, they marveled at how weak and fragile it had always been. And how much stronger they were than they had ever known.
Who were these people? They were leftovers and flyover country. They didn’t have bachelor degrees and had never set foot in a Starbucks. They were the white working class. They didn’t talk right or think right. They had the wrong ideas, the wrong clothes and the ridiculous idea that they still mattered.
They were wrong about everything. Illegal immigration? Everyone knew it was here to stay. Black Lives Matter? The new civil rights movement. Manufacturing? As dead as the dodo. Banning Muslims? What kind of bigot even thinks that way? Love wins. Marriage loses. The future belongs to the urban metrosexual and his dot com, not the guy who used to have a good job before it went to China or Mexico.
They couldn’t change anything. A thousand politicians and pundits had talked of getting them to adapt to the inevitable future. Instead they got in their pickup trucks and drove out to vote.
And they changed everything.
Barack Hussein Obama boasted that he had changed America. A billion regulations, a million immigrants, a hundred thousand lies and it was no longer your America. It was his.
He was JFK and FDR rolled into one. He told us that his version of history was right and inevitable.
And they voted and left him in the dust. They walked past him and they didn’t listen. He had come to campaign to where they still cling to their guns and their bibles. He came to plead for his legacy.
And America said, “No.”
Fifty millions Americans repudiated him. They repudiated the Obamas and the Clintons. They ignored the celebrities. They paid no attention to the media. They voted because they believed in the impossible. And their dedication made the impossible happen.
Americans were told that walls couldn’t be built and factories couldn’t be opened. That treaties couldn’t be unsigned and wars couldn’t be won. It was impossible to ban Muslim terrorists from coming to America or to deport the illegal aliens turning towns and cities into gangland territories.
It was all impossible. And fifty million Americans did the impossible. They turned the world upside down.
It’s midnight in America. CNN is weeping. MSNBC is wailing. ABC calls it a tantrum. NBC damns it. It wasn’t supposed to happen. The same machine that crushed the American people for two straight terms, the mass of government, corporations and non-profits that ran the country, was set to win.
Instead the people stood in front of the machine. They blocked it with their bodies. They went to vote even though the polls told them it was useless. They mailed in their absentee ballots even while Hillary Clinton was planning her fireworks victory celebration. They looked at the empty factories and barren farms. They drove through the early cold. They waited in line. They came home to their children to tell them that they had done their best for their future. They bet on America. And they won.
They won improbably. And they won amazingly.
They were tired of ObamaCare. They were tired of unemployment. They were tired of being lied to. They were tired of watching their sons come back in coffins to protect some Muslim country. They were tired of being called racists and homophobes. They were tired of seeing their America disappear.
And they stood up and fought back. This was their last hope. Their last chance to be heard.
Watch this video. See ten ways John Oliver destroyed Donald Trump. Here’s three ways Samantha Bee broke the internet by taunting Trump supporters. These three minutes of Stephen Colbert talking about how stupid Trump is owns the internet. Watch Madonna curse out Trump supporters. Watch Katy Perry. Watch Miley Cyrus. Watch Robert Downey Jr. Watch Beyonce campaign with Hillary. Watch. Click.
Watch fifty million Americans take back their country.
The media had the election wrong all along. This wasn’t about personalities. It was about the impersonal. It was about fifty million people whose names no one except a server will ever know fighting back. It was about the homeless woman guarding Trump’s star. It was about the lost Democrats searching for someone to represent them in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It was about the union men who nodded along when the organizers told them how to vote, but who refused to sell out their futures.
No one will ever interview all those men and women. We will never see all their faces. But they are us and we are them. They came to the aid of a nation in peril. They did what real Americans have always done. They did the impossible.
America is a nation of impossibilities. We exist because our forefathers did not take no for an answer. Not from kings or tyrants. Not from the elites who told them that it couldn’t be done.
The day when we stop being able to pull off the impossible is the day that America will cease to exist.
Today is not that day. Today fifty million Americans did the impossible.
Midnight has passed. A new day has come. And everything is about to change.
They were fathers who couldn’t feed their families anymore. They were mothers who couldn’t afford health care. They were workers whose jobs had been sold off to foreign countries. They were sons who didn’t see a future for themselves. They were daughters afraid of being murdered by the “unaccompanied minors” flooding into their towns. They took a deep breath and they stood.
They held up their hands and the great iron wheel stopped.
The Great Blue Wall crumbled. The impossible states fell one by one. Ohio. Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. Iowa. The white working class that had been overlooked and trampled on for so long got to its feet. It rose up against its oppressors and the rest of the nation, from coast to coast, rose up with it.
They fought back against their jobs being shipped overseas while their towns filled with migrants that got everything while they got nothing. They fought back against a system in which they could go to jail for a trifle while the elites could violate the law and still stroll through a presidential election. They fought back against being told that they had to watch what they say. They fought back against being held in contempt because they wanted to work for a living and take care of their families.
They fought and they won.
This wasn’t a vote. It was an uprising. Like the ordinary men chipping away at the Berlin Wall, they tore down an unnatural thing that had towered over them. And as they watched it fall, they marveled at how weak and fragile it had always been. And how much stronger they were than they had ever known.
Who were these people? They were leftovers and flyover country. They didn’t have bachelor degrees and had never set foot in a Starbucks. They were the white working class. They didn’t talk right or think right. They had the wrong ideas, the wrong clothes and the ridiculous idea that they still mattered.
They were wrong about everything. Illegal immigration? Everyone knew it was here to stay. Black Lives Matter? The new civil rights movement. Manufacturing? As dead as the dodo. Banning Muslims? What kind of bigot even thinks that way? Love wins. Marriage loses. The future belongs to the urban metrosexual and his dot com, not the guy who used to have a good job before it went to China or Mexico.
They couldn’t change anything. A thousand politicians and pundits had talked of getting them to adapt to the inevitable future. Instead they got in their pickup trucks and drove out to vote.
And they changed everything.
Barack Hussein Obama boasted that he had changed America. A billion regulations, a million immigrants, a hundred thousand lies and it was no longer your America. It was his.
He was JFK and FDR rolled into one. He told us that his version of history was right and inevitable.
And they voted and left him in the dust. They walked past him and they didn’t listen. He had come to campaign to where they still cling to their guns and their bibles. He came to plead for his legacy.
And America said, “No.”
Fifty millions Americans repudiated him. They repudiated the Obamas and the Clintons. They ignored the celebrities. They paid no attention to the media. They voted because they believed in the impossible. And their dedication made the impossible happen.
Americans were told that walls couldn’t be built and factories couldn’t be opened. That treaties couldn’t be unsigned and wars couldn’t be won. It was impossible to ban Muslim terrorists from coming to America or to deport the illegal aliens turning towns and cities into gangland territories.
It was all impossible. And fifty million Americans did the impossible. They turned the world upside down.
It’s midnight in America. CNN is weeping. MSNBC is wailing. ABC calls it a tantrum. NBC damns it. It wasn’t supposed to happen. The same machine that crushed the American people for two straight terms, the mass of government, corporations and non-profits that ran the country, was set to win.
Instead the people stood in front of the machine. They blocked it with their bodies. They went to vote even though the polls told them it was useless. They mailed in their absentee ballots even while Hillary Clinton was planning her fireworks victory celebration. They looked at the empty factories and barren farms. They drove through the early cold. They waited in line. They came home to their children to tell them that they had done their best for their future. They bet on America. And they won.
They won improbably. And they won amazingly.
They were tired of ObamaCare. They were tired of unemployment. They were tired of being lied to. They were tired of watching their sons come back in coffins to protect some Muslim country. They were tired of being called racists and homophobes. They were tired of seeing their America disappear.
And they stood up and fought back. This was their last hope. Their last chance to be heard.
Watch this video. See ten ways John Oliver destroyed Donald Trump. Here’s three ways Samantha Bee broke the internet by taunting Trump supporters. These three minutes of Stephen Colbert talking about how stupid Trump is owns the internet. Watch Madonna curse out Trump supporters. Watch Katy Perry. Watch Miley Cyrus. Watch Robert Downey Jr. Watch Beyonce campaign with Hillary. Watch. Click.
Watch fifty million Americans take back their country.
The media had the election wrong all along. This wasn’t about personalities. It was about the impersonal. It was about fifty million people whose names no one except a server will ever know fighting back. It was about the homeless woman guarding Trump’s star. It was about the lost Democrats searching for someone to represent them in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It was about the union men who nodded along when the organizers told them how to vote, but who refused to sell out their futures.
No one will ever interview all those men and women. We will never see all their faces. But they are us and we are them. They came to the aid of a nation in peril. They did what real Americans have always done. They did the impossible.
America is a nation of impossibilities. We exist because our forefathers did not take no for an answer. Not from kings or tyrants. Not from the elites who told them that it couldn’t be done.
The day when we stop being able to pull off the impossible is the day that America will cease to exist.
Today is not that day. Today fifty million Americans did the impossible.
Midnight has passed. A new day has come. And everything is about to change.
h/t Daniel Greenfield,
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Viva la Revolución?
In every country where a revolution has taken place (whether it be a “soft” revolution or a violent overthrow), those who are part of the winning team make a point of glorifying the revolution and all the “good” that it has brought. For this reason, the inhabitants of most countries where a revolution has taken place at some point in their history will believe that the revolution was positive. In countries where that revolution was opposed, the people will most likely regard the revolution as negative.
As an example, Frenchmen tend to praise their Revolution of 1789, in which the aristocracy were overthrown. Since then, the emphasis has been on the “little man.” The little man would not only be treated equally to the aristocrat, he would receive preferential treatment. Not surprisingly, this devolved into the socialism that dominates France today. In spite of the dysfunctionality of the French system, most Frenchmen fondly praise the Revolution and the “freedom” that it ostensibly created for them.
And then we have the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Its stated purpose was to overthrow the aristocratic Batista Regime and replace it with one that favoured the campesinos. The aristocracy was removed and ownership of most everything moved to the state. There is most certainly greater equality in Cuba today (albeit at a very low level), and yet we’re taught to regard the Cuban Revolution as having been destructive, as it devolved into socialism. Although the current system is largely dysfunctional, the Cuban people, even today, speak of the freedom that the Revolution created for them.
These two examples are similar, and yet Westerners are taught to regard the French government as an enlightened body of men and women who spend their waking hours legislating for ever-increased goodness for the French people, yet we’re equally taught to regard the Cuban government as tyrannical rulers lording over an oppressed people.
The perception of the results of the respective revolutions would seem to have little to do with the reason for the revolution, its immediate outcome, or its eventual outcome, and have more to do with whether the leadership of the country is “on our side” or not. Those countries where the leaders align themselves with our own country are good and enlightened, whilst the leaders who do not align themselves with our country are tyrannical dictators. The true level of freedom for the people is not really at issue.
“We’re Not Going to Take it Anymore”
So let’s take a thumbnail view of revolutions. The premise behind the desire for revolution is always the same – a segment of the population feels that the government (and very possibly their cohorts) have become oppressive and should be overthrown. When the history is written by the victors, they will endeavour to create the impression that the entire population rose up; however, this is never the case. A dissatisfied minority succeeded in taking over.
So what, then, of the majority? Well, prior to the revolution, they sat along the sidelines and tolerated whatever perceived injustices the former government imposed upon them. During the revolution, they often sat on the sidelines, hoping to have as little involvement as possible, and, after the revolution, they generally sat on the sidelines, hoping to benefit from the new regime, or at least avoid being victimised.
In Russia in 1917, a relatively small number of people overthrew the aristocracy and were then faced with the problem of taking over. They had no experience in this and didn’t know where to begin. Enter Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin, who had little to do with the revolution itself but, through funding from London and New York banks, were able to pay the Russian military and police to establish order, to a cursory degree. Once this was achieved, they used the military and police to establish order to a ruthless degree. (Not exactly saving the little man from the oppression of the aristocracy.) As Mister Lenin himself said,
“One man with a gun can control one hundred without one.”
In the aforementioned France in 1789, the aristocracy was overthrown by a relatively small number of revolutionaries, and, again, the victors had no real experience in running a country. Enter Maximilien Robespierre, a lawyer with a flair for control and a contempt for the hoi polloi. However, he was good at rhetoric, and the people cheered as he lopped off heads. This in spite of the fact that he most certainly did not deliver “freedom” to the French people, only the illusion of it. As he himself stated,
“The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”
Meet the New Boss – Same as the Old Boss
And so it has gone, in one revolution after another. Whether it be a soft revolution, or a violent one, it’s generally followed by a disorganised and often violent period, where commerce, social stability, and freedom suffer, at the very least, for as long as it takes the new management to pull it all together, and, in most cases, long thereafter. From Juan Perón in Argentina, the Shah in Iran, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and countless others, revolution has meant diminished liberty and hard economic times.
Meet the New Boss – Worse Than the Old Boss
In some cases, such as Mao Tse-tung in China, Idi Amin Dada in Uganda, and Pol Pot in Cambodia, conditions worsened considerably after the revolution had “freed the people” – sometimes for decades.
It should be said that there have been a few cases of both soft and violent revolutions in which the new leaders were truly visionary and ushered in an era of greater freedom, such as the American Revolution of 1776, Corazon Aquino in the Philippines, and Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Yet, even in these cases, the rot set in almost immediately through individuals within the new governments who sought to recreate authoritarian power within an otherwise positive takeover.
Be Careful What You Wish For
The American Revolution notwithstanding, violent revolution almost never ends well. The odds are poor that you’ll get a more just leader or the greater freedoms that the revolutionaries have promised.
Today we’re observing the deterioration of the world’s most prominent capitalistic countries, all at the same time. Each has devolved into a fascist state. Again, to quote Mister Lenin,
“Fascism is capitalism in decline.”
Quite so. And, like many Russians in the early days of the twentieth century, we see an increasing number of citizens of the former “free world” realising that the decline of their countries is baked in the cake… that things are not likely to improve in their lifetimes.
And so, many fantasise that a revolution of some sort will occur. They hope for a soft revolution (virtually no chance of that happening) or a violent one – possibly generated by the millions of gun owners across the country. Unfortunately, no amount of handguns and assault weapons will equal their government’s arsenal of tanks, drones, chemical weapons, etc. A revolt could occur, and spontaneous nationwide guerrilla tactics could make it difficult to put down, but the likely outcome would be years of strife and bloodshed, followed by dramatically increased authoritarian rule.
A third option might be to accept that, yes, the decline into fascism is a dead end, but then so, in all likelihood, is revolution. That being the case, those who see two possible negative outcomes and no positive one might take the simpler step of internationalising – moving to one of the many countries that are not presently on the ropes.
Editor’s Note: Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare…
The coming economic and political collapse is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen in the past.
As an example, Frenchmen tend to praise their Revolution of 1789, in which the aristocracy were overthrown. Since then, the emphasis has been on the “little man.” The little man would not only be treated equally to the aristocrat, he would receive preferential treatment. Not surprisingly, this devolved into the socialism that dominates France today. In spite of the dysfunctionality of the French system, most Frenchmen fondly praise the Revolution and the “freedom” that it ostensibly created for them.
And then we have the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Its stated purpose was to overthrow the aristocratic Batista Regime and replace it with one that favoured the campesinos. The aristocracy was removed and ownership of most everything moved to the state. There is most certainly greater equality in Cuba today (albeit at a very low level), and yet we’re taught to regard the Cuban Revolution as having been destructive, as it devolved into socialism. Although the current system is largely dysfunctional, the Cuban people, even today, speak of the freedom that the Revolution created for them.
These two examples are similar, and yet Westerners are taught to regard the French government as an enlightened body of men and women who spend their waking hours legislating for ever-increased goodness for the French people, yet we’re equally taught to regard the Cuban government as tyrannical rulers lording over an oppressed people.
The perception of the results of the respective revolutions would seem to have little to do with the reason for the revolution, its immediate outcome, or its eventual outcome, and have more to do with whether the leadership of the country is “on our side” or not. Those countries where the leaders align themselves with our own country are good and enlightened, whilst the leaders who do not align themselves with our country are tyrannical dictators. The true level of freedom for the people is not really at issue.
“We’re Not Going to Take it Anymore”
So let’s take a thumbnail view of revolutions. The premise behind the desire for revolution is always the same – a segment of the population feels that the government (and very possibly their cohorts) have become oppressive and should be overthrown. When the history is written by the victors, they will endeavour to create the impression that the entire population rose up; however, this is never the case. A dissatisfied minority succeeded in taking over.
So what, then, of the majority? Well, prior to the revolution, they sat along the sidelines and tolerated whatever perceived injustices the former government imposed upon them. During the revolution, they often sat on the sidelines, hoping to have as little involvement as possible, and, after the revolution, they generally sat on the sidelines, hoping to benefit from the new regime, or at least avoid being victimised.
In Russia in 1917, a relatively small number of people overthrew the aristocracy and were then faced with the problem of taking over. They had no experience in this and didn’t know where to begin. Enter Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin, who had little to do with the revolution itself but, through funding from London and New York banks, were able to pay the Russian military and police to establish order, to a cursory degree. Once this was achieved, they used the military and police to establish order to a ruthless degree. (Not exactly saving the little man from the oppression of the aristocracy.) As Mister Lenin himself said,
“One man with a gun can control one hundred without one.”
In the aforementioned France in 1789, the aristocracy was overthrown by a relatively small number of revolutionaries, and, again, the victors had no real experience in running a country. Enter Maximilien Robespierre, a lawyer with a flair for control and a contempt for the hoi polloi. However, he was good at rhetoric, and the people cheered as he lopped off heads. This in spite of the fact that he most certainly did not deliver “freedom” to the French people, only the illusion of it. As he himself stated,
“The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”
Meet the New Boss – Same as the Old Boss
And so it has gone, in one revolution after another. Whether it be a soft revolution, or a violent one, it’s generally followed by a disorganised and often violent period, where commerce, social stability, and freedom suffer, at the very least, for as long as it takes the new management to pull it all together, and, in most cases, long thereafter. From Juan Perón in Argentina, the Shah in Iran, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and countless others, revolution has meant diminished liberty and hard economic times.
Meet the New Boss – Worse Than the Old Boss
In some cases, such as Mao Tse-tung in China, Idi Amin Dada in Uganda, and Pol Pot in Cambodia, conditions worsened considerably after the revolution had “freed the people” – sometimes for decades.
It should be said that there have been a few cases of both soft and violent revolutions in which the new leaders were truly visionary and ushered in an era of greater freedom, such as the American Revolution of 1776, Corazon Aquino in the Philippines, and Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Yet, even in these cases, the rot set in almost immediately through individuals within the new governments who sought to recreate authoritarian power within an otherwise positive takeover.
Be Careful What You Wish For
The American Revolution notwithstanding, violent revolution almost never ends well. The odds are poor that you’ll get a more just leader or the greater freedoms that the revolutionaries have promised.
Today we’re observing the deterioration of the world’s most prominent capitalistic countries, all at the same time. Each has devolved into a fascist state. Again, to quote Mister Lenin,
“Fascism is capitalism in decline.”
Quite so. And, like many Russians in the early days of the twentieth century, we see an increasing number of citizens of the former “free world” realising that the decline of their countries is baked in the cake… that things are not likely to improve in their lifetimes.
And so, many fantasise that a revolution of some sort will occur. They hope for a soft revolution (virtually no chance of that happening) or a violent one – possibly generated by the millions of gun owners across the country. Unfortunately, no amount of handguns and assault weapons will equal their government’s arsenal of tanks, drones, chemical weapons, etc. A revolt could occur, and spontaneous nationwide guerrilla tactics could make it difficult to put down, but the likely outcome would be years of strife and bloodshed, followed by dramatically increased authoritarian rule.
A third option might be to accept that, yes, the decline into fascism is a dead end, but then so, in all likelihood, is revolution. That being the case, those who see two possible negative outcomes and no positive one might take the simpler step of internationalising – moving to one of the many countries that are not presently on the ropes.
Editor’s Note: Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare…
The coming economic and political collapse is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen in the past.
h/t Jeff Thomas
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
A Vote for Treason
It has taken several months and a number of email dumps from Wikileaks to finally figure out what this presidential election is all about. There are only two ways to vote, for Donald Trump or for Hillary Clinton. But neither of those are what one would be voting for.
A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to resist the massive corruption of government, a vote against globalism, against "global warming" or "climate change" theology; it is a vote against media collusion and interference in politics. A vote for Donald Trump is not a vote for the person at all, that is why despite the media onslaught of negative stories about him as a person carries no weight with those who support him, because they don't support him at all, they support what he represents, which is a chance to hold Hillary Clinton responsible for her crimes and therefore all of the crooked politicians of 2012 who coerced votes out of their Republican base only to turn on them the next day.
Likewise, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a transformed America, a quasi-police state where the government intervenes in business and forces some out of business while subsidizing other businesses that could not possibly sustain themselves without massive graft and media brainwashing. All of those businesses would be held hostage to a criminal organization originating from the White House. It would be a vote to end forever the concept of individual rights. Hillary Clinton would do no less than continue the work of the Obama Administration to destroy individual rights and nearly half of the nation is in favor of just that. It would be a continued replacement of the voters who value the principles of the founding of this nation with those who have no like expectation. It is a vote for the sudden disappearance of websites like this one.
The outcome is bigger than that. The next president will likely be a true war-time president. As Vladimir Zhirinovsky claimed a vote for Hillary Clinton would be a vote for war. War with Russia may be inevitable and irrespective of the election as it seems likely that war will begin before the next president can take office. But, there is the question of who would be more likely to effectively fight that war. More than that, would our military leaders be willing to follow the orders of a criminal like Hillary Clinton running a crime organization out of Washington? Would they put their lives in jeopardy knowing the cold-blooded actions she demonstrated in Benghazi? Or, would they likely recognize that their lives meant nothing to the Commander in Chief?
So many things are now known about the media establishment and the collusion it shares with the Clinton campaign. More things are being found out every day as Wikileaks provides proof of the public perception. The people were right, there is a conspiracy to keep them uninformed and misinformed to protect Democrat politicians from facing scandals. It is clear now that there will never be a Democrat held accountable for their actions and therefore the only time Americans can expect to get anything other than abusive and criminal officeholders is if they elect a Republican.
A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to resist the massive corruption of government, a vote against globalism, against "global warming" or "climate change" theology; it is a vote against media collusion and interference in politics. A vote for Donald Trump is not a vote for the person at all, that is why despite the media onslaught of negative stories about him as a person carries no weight with those who support him, because they don't support him at all, they support what he represents, which is a chance to hold Hillary Clinton responsible for her crimes and therefore all of the crooked politicians of 2012 who coerced votes out of their Republican base only to turn on them the next day.
Likewise, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a transformed America, a quasi-police state where the government intervenes in business and forces some out of business while subsidizing other businesses that could not possibly sustain themselves without massive graft and media brainwashing. All of those businesses would be held hostage to a criminal organization originating from the White House. It would be a vote to end forever the concept of individual rights. Hillary Clinton would do no less than continue the work of the Obama Administration to destroy individual rights and nearly half of the nation is in favor of just that. It would be a continued replacement of the voters who value the principles of the founding of this nation with those who have no like expectation. It is a vote for the sudden disappearance of websites like this one.
The outcome is bigger than that. The next president will likely be a true war-time president. As Vladimir Zhirinovsky claimed a vote for Hillary Clinton would be a vote for war. War with Russia may be inevitable and irrespective of the election as it seems likely that war will begin before the next president can take office. But, there is the question of who would be more likely to effectively fight that war. More than that, would our military leaders be willing to follow the orders of a criminal like Hillary Clinton running a crime organization out of Washington? Would they put their lives in jeopardy knowing the cold-blooded actions she demonstrated in Benghazi? Or, would they likely recognize that their lives meant nothing to the Commander in Chief?
So many things are now known about the media establishment and the collusion it shares with the Clinton campaign. More things are being found out every day as Wikileaks provides proof of the public perception. The people were right, there is a conspiracy to keep them uninformed and misinformed to protect Democrat politicians from facing scandals. It is clear now that there will never be a Democrat held accountable for their actions and therefore the only time Americans can expect to get anything other than abusive and criminal officeholders is if they elect a Republican.
h/t TL Davis
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
The Problem with Leaders
"Nevertheless, one of our limitations is that nearly all of us look to (and for) leaders. Fine, if we want to build a tree-house or a government. But when it comes to freedom, that means we’re looking not only in the wrong direction, but in the diametrically opposite direction we should be."
Excellent post from friend Claire Wolfe
Friday, September 2, 2016
Quote Without Comment
On saying the Pledge of Allegiance:
Sorry - I already pledged my allegiance to my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. I have no allegiance left for a piece of brightly colored cloth and repetitive incantations lauding a Freedom destroying oligarchy trying to disguise itself as a "republic". If one sincerely believes in an omniscient, loving Supreme Being, the postulation that it somehow favors an entity so monumentally destructive should be nauseating....
Sorry - I already pledged my allegiance to my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. I have no allegiance left for a piece of brightly colored cloth and repetitive incantations lauding a Freedom destroying oligarchy trying to disguise itself as a "republic". If one sincerely believes in an omniscient, loving Supreme Being, the postulation that it somehow favors an entity so monumentally destructive should be nauseating....
Monday, August 8, 2016
Mencken again
Thought for the Daze
Morality is doing what’s right regardless of what you’re told.
Obedience is doing what you’re told regardless of what is right.
- H.L. Mencken
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Another Facebook Exchange
Brian Wilson "In my eyes he's the only logical choice." Actually - if you dare argue "logic" - the answer is unequivocally "don't vote at all". If you maintain you are for Libertarian "self government", then voting for a " ruler" with the power to inflict the immoral Force of Government upon you is either terminally stupid or remarkably hypocritical - but it is no way "logical". Irrespective of that, I most certainly support your right to your opinion - as untenable as it may be.
XXXX I'm not an anarchist. I simply believe that the governments only job is to protect our rights outlined in the constitution. Any step in that direction would be amazing. It would be much better than them taking our rights!!!
Like · Reply ·
Brian Wilson As recorded history has proven, It is virtually impossible for Govt to do the job you want. Acton nailed it: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Govt is nothing but the organized exercise of power. Power requires Force. While the use of Force in defense of inalienable rights may be admirable, it has never even been achieved with any permanence due to the toxic corrosion from the monopoly on Force thru Power given to Government. The quaint notion that any individual can do this thru the imagined magic of elected office is beyond "hypocrisy"; it is simply not possible. You might want to give Anarchism an thorough and objective examination. You may be surprised to find precisely what you want - in an entirely different form.
Like · Reply ·
Monday, August 1, 2016
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Thought for the Days
The persistent existence of Liberals is due to their immunity to any infection of intelligence that will cure their Aggressive Ignorance. When faced with irrefutable facts, Liberals cling to their indefensible opinions the same way they ridicule Conservatives “clinging to their guns and Bibles”. The significant difference being Conservatives are principally motivated to defend their inalienable right to Life, Liberty and Happiness. In contrast, the Liberals’ minds are in permanent lockdown, thoroughly resistant to any reasoned enlightenment that threatens their oppressive worldview of entitlement to authority and power over others into subservience through unbridled, aggressive force.
- Brian Wilson
- Brian Wilson
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Free Movie!
Clinton Cash, a feature documentary based on the Peter Schweizer book, has been posted to YouTube for all to view free just in time for the DNC. Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with over $2 billion in donations to their foundation. This wealth was accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.
The New York Times hailed the book as “The most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle" while MSNBC described the documentary as devastating for the Hillary campaign.
The Clinton camp has, of course, dismissed the documentary as a right-wing smear campaign filled with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. That said, perhaps the most shocking aspect of the release is that many of the biggest bombshells revealed in the documentary have been vetted and confirmed by various mainstream media outlets. More recently, some information uncovered in the Panama Papers has echoed some of Schweitzer’s allegations in the movie and book.
Click here - and Share
Clinton Cash
The New York Times hailed the book as “The most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle" while MSNBC described the documentary as devastating for the Hillary campaign.
The Clinton camp has, of course, dismissed the documentary as a right-wing smear campaign filled with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. That said, perhaps the most shocking aspect of the release is that many of the biggest bombshells revealed in the documentary have been vetted and confirmed by various mainstream media outlets. More recently, some information uncovered in the Panama Papers has echoed some of Schweitzer’s allegations in the movie and book.
Click here - and Share
Clinton Cash
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Authority and Obedience
There is a harsh contrast between what we are taught is the purpose of authority (to create a peaceful civilized society) and the real world results of “authority” in action. Flip through any history book and you will see that most of the injustice and destruction that has occurred throughout the world was not the result of people “breaking the law”, but rather the result of people obeying and enforcing the laws of various governments. The evils that have been committed in spite of “authority” are trivial compared to the evils that have been committed in the name of “authority”.
Nevertheless, children are still taught that peace and justice come from authoritarian control and that, despite the flagrant evils committed by authoritarian regimes around the world throughout history, they are still morally obligated to respect and obey the current government of their own country. They are taught that “doing as you’re told” is synonymous with being a good person, and that “playing by the rules” is synonymous with doing the right thing. On the contrary being a moral person requires taking on the personal responsibility of judging right from wrong and following one’s own conscience, the opposite of respecting and obeying “authority”.
"The Most Dangerous Superstition"
"The Most Dangerous Superstition"
Friday, July 15, 2016
The End is Near-er
Pull quote:
"Being wealthy used to be a virtue worthy of widespread aspiration.
Now it’s met with skepticism and derision.
Similarly, intellectual dissent used to be embraced.
Now it’s increasingly considered “hate speech” that must be banished from university campuses and their infantile ‘safe spaces’.
And the entire west, it seems, is moving towards an ever-expanding, fiscally unsustainable welfare state that creates swelling masses of dependents.
This is a complete breakdown of western values, and that has serious consequences."
Click here...
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Consent of the Governed?
Mr. Higgs eloquently expands on one of my previous posts.
What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke’s time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been “the consent of the governed.” When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This sounds good, especially if one doesn’t think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes.
One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take ― verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization.
I raise this question because in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.
What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke’s time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been “the consent of the governed.” When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This sounds good, especially if one doesn’t think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes.
One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take ― verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization.
I raise this question because in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.
Friday, June 17, 2016
FBI Lies
Note: The author, Hugh Turley, is one of the 3 leading experts on the Vince Foster murder. We became friends while I was hosting a talk show on DC's WWRC. Since the earliest news reports, Hugh, "confidential informant" Patrick Knowlton and attorney John H. Clarke, have diligently followed and exposed every aspect of the murder, including the failures, harassment and duplicity of Park Police, FBI, coroners, forensic "experts", Senators, Congressmen, reporters and the news media. While sordid and convoluted, their combined diligence resulted in revelations and vindications. However, with insufficient media exposure and a surplus of public apathy, this heinous crime, the perpetrators and a united government-media cover-up hiding in plane sight, remains a criminal obfuscation of the truth to this day.
Brian Wilson
"The cover-up of the murder of a White House official is a crime against society and the American people. The cover-up of the murder of Vince Foster should concern both Democrats and Republicans...
The proof of the cover-up is found in Ken Starr’s report on the death of Vince Foster. The U.S. Court of Appeals that appointed Starr ordered him to include evidence of the cover-up, over his objection, in his own report, as an appendix. It is stated in the appendix to the report, “the FBI concealed the true facts surrounding Mr. Foster’s death” and “the FBI obstructed justice in this matter.”
The news of this historic appendix to the Independent Counsel’s report has been suppressed by the news media since 1997 when it was made public. It is available at university libraries and online atFBIcover-up.com."
Article here.
Brian Wilson
"The cover-up of the murder of a White House official is a crime against society and the American people. The cover-up of the murder of Vince Foster should concern both Democrats and Republicans...
The proof of the cover-up is found in Ken Starr’s report on the death of Vince Foster. The U.S. Court of Appeals that appointed Starr ordered him to include evidence of the cover-up, over his objection, in his own report, as an appendix. It is stated in the appendix to the report, “the FBI concealed the true facts surrounding Mr. Foster’s death” and “the FBI obstructed justice in this matter.”
The news of this historic appendix to the Independent Counsel’s report has been suppressed by the news media since 1997 when it was made public. It is available at university libraries and online atFBIcover-up.com."
Article here.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Thought for the Day: Power
Power does not self-generate. It is the toxic amalgam of a strain of deleterious human failings. Government itself is the manifestation of immoral force administered by liars, thieves and sociopaths. At best, it is the pavement of good intentions. If power doesn't corrupt, why has their never been an uncorrupted government? Since Government is merely a magnet for the socially reprehensible and criminally insane, sane people should be rejecting nonsense like "elections" and working instead to dispel any form of "government" - for their own safety and welfare.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
The Cult of Ignorance
We have fallen into the bad and unquestioned habit of thinking that our educational system is broken, but it is working on all cylinders. What our educational system aims to produce is cultural amnesia, a wholesale lack of curiosity, history-less free agents, and educational goals composed of content-free processes and unexamined buzz-words like "critical thinking," "diversity," "ways of knowing," "social justice," and "cultural competence."
A most excellent piece. Read it here.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Conundrum:
Free people are not equal.
Equal people are not free.
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one,
you'll probably never need one again.
you'll probably never need one again.
The definition of the word Conundrum is: Something that is puzzling or confusing.
Here are six conundrums of socialism:
In the United States of America:
1. America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized.
2. Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.
3. They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.
4. Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.
5. The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century. Makes you wonder who is doing the math.
These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Funny how that works. And here's another one worth considering...
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?
What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
Think about it.....
And Last but not least:
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.
Am I the only one missing something?
Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
h/t Waddy Moffetts
Monday, April 18, 2016
How it happened...
I was not born an anarchist. Like everyone else of my time and place I was born into a culture pervaded by statism and unquestioning acceptance of the state’s existence and of most if not all of its activities, including, of course, its blessed wars. I did not become an anarchist later because of an encounter, whether personal or literary, in which I suddenly saw the light. I had no Pauline road-to-Damascus experience. Instead, anarchism crept up on me, almost against my will, because I understood full-well that adopting such an ideology would entail my colleague’s, friends’, and relatives’ consignment of me to the lunatic fringe. Besides, as a well-trained social scientist, I was familiar with a variety of objections and challenges to anarchism having to do with both its desirability and its feasibility.
Eventually, however, little by little I seamlessly made the transition to anarchism as my adopted ideology, completing my journey perhaps fifteen or twenty years ago. This outcome occurred not because I had found leading expositions of the doctrine compelling. I had read Murray Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty” and David Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom," but neither persuaded me to make the leap. Nor did any of the other works along similar lines that I read. I understood, of course, that states perform many actions that they ought not to perform and that they perform actions that might be desirable very badly – after all, economic history and political economy were my research and teaching specialties. But, for me, concluding that states ought not to exist at all required a more compelling reason.
What finally pushed me over the brink had little to do with pondering the glories that had sprung or someday might spring from the operation of a stateless social order. I was not so much drawn to statelessness as I was revolted by the state. After decades of dealing with, researching, writing about, and consulting in regard to the state, learning more and more about what states actually do and how they actually do it, I was completely disgusted by the putrid pretense of their foundational justifications, by the sheer fraudulence of what they purport to be doing and how they purport to be doing it, by the moral impudence with which state leaders and functionaries treat the human beings subject to their control as if those persons were nothing but soft clay figurines to be squeezed into new shapes and pushed here and there on the state’s chess board. Most of all, I was repelled by the psychotic, steely-eyed indifference with which state leaders and functionaries slaughter innocent people abroad by the millions and ruin the lives of their own subjects by the scores of millions for no decent reason whatsoever (e.g., the war on drugs).
Yes, I came to understand why state activities so generally fail to achieve their ostensible objectives but, more important, I also came to understand that the ostensible objectives are generally mere window dressing for the actual objectives the state leaders and their chief supporters and running dogs seek, which boil down in nearly all cases to transferring enormous amounts of income and wealth to persons the state favors and to bullying nearly everyone outside the state’s inner sanctum for the simple pleasure of pushing them around. Having repeatedly opened up the cesspool that is the state and witnessed its stinking contents, I no longer wanted anything to do with it, and my allegiance to it evaporated once and for all.
None of this matters in the least so far as the state’s devotion to taxing and bullying me is concerned. But I take some solace in the fact that however subject my body and my bank account may be to the dictates of the evil creatures who preside over the vile institutions that form the state, my soul no longer belongs to them. I wish they would resign, make all feasible restitution to those they have wronged, and seek honest employment, but until they do so, they can, so far as I care, go straight to hell.
h-t Robt Higgs
Eventually, however, little by little I seamlessly made the transition to anarchism as my adopted ideology, completing my journey perhaps fifteen or twenty years ago. This outcome occurred not because I had found leading expositions of the doctrine compelling. I had read Murray Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty” and David Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom," but neither persuaded me to make the leap. Nor did any of the other works along similar lines that I read. I understood, of course, that states perform many actions that they ought not to perform and that they perform actions that might be desirable very badly – after all, economic history and political economy were my research and teaching specialties. But, for me, concluding that states ought not to exist at all required a more compelling reason.
What finally pushed me over the brink had little to do with pondering the glories that had sprung or someday might spring from the operation of a stateless social order. I was not so much drawn to statelessness as I was revolted by the state. After decades of dealing with, researching, writing about, and consulting in regard to the state, learning more and more about what states actually do and how they actually do it, I was completely disgusted by the putrid pretense of their foundational justifications, by the sheer fraudulence of what they purport to be doing and how they purport to be doing it, by the moral impudence with which state leaders and functionaries treat the human beings subject to their control as if those persons were nothing but soft clay figurines to be squeezed into new shapes and pushed here and there on the state’s chess board. Most of all, I was repelled by the psychotic, steely-eyed indifference with which state leaders and functionaries slaughter innocent people abroad by the millions and ruin the lives of their own subjects by the scores of millions for no decent reason whatsoever (e.g., the war on drugs).
Yes, I came to understand why state activities so generally fail to achieve their ostensible objectives but, more important, I also came to understand that the ostensible objectives are generally mere window dressing for the actual objectives the state leaders and their chief supporters and running dogs seek, which boil down in nearly all cases to transferring enormous amounts of income and wealth to persons the state favors and to bullying nearly everyone outside the state’s inner sanctum for the simple pleasure of pushing them around. Having repeatedly opened up the cesspool that is the state and witnessed its stinking contents, I no longer wanted anything to do with it, and my allegiance to it evaporated once and for all.
None of this matters in the least so far as the state’s devotion to taxing and bullying me is concerned. But I take some solace in the fact that however subject my body and my bank account may be to the dictates of the evil creatures who preside over the vile institutions that form the state, my soul no longer belongs to them. I wish they would resign, make all feasible restitution to those they have wronged, and seek honest employment, but until they do so, they can, so far as I care, go straight to hell.
h-t Robt Higgs
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Anarchism - Another perspective
When using the word “anarchism,” I don’t mean it as a blueprint for some utopia. I mean it as an ideal, or a standard of human relations that can guide us in trying to make a better world. This standard is simply that *voluntary* human relations are the opposite of power relations, and that communities are best organized by voluntary relations. That is, relations among equals, and not between rulers and subjects.
The word ‘anarchy’ itself comes from the Greek word “anarkhos”, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘ rulers.’ To the extent that a community replaces power relations with voluntary ones, it moves closer to the ideal.
If human nature is violent and destructive, then anarchism is a fantasy at best, and violence and chaos at worst. But if human nature is ingenious and cooperative, then anarchy is the *ONLY* way that humanity can thrive, and the way we *DID* thrive for a quarter of a million years. In fact, if we define ‘liberty’ as the absence of domination, then we see that ‘liberty’ is just another word for anarchism.
How would an anarchist world work? Don’t ask me. *THAT* is for the individuals of the world to decide. The idea that some people can tell others how to live is the opposite of anarchism.
For 6,000 years, more and more of the world’s population has lived under domination. Even under this burden, communities *everywhere* have adapted brilliantly, and made as fit a way of life as possible for themselves. If this adaptive brilliance were freed from domination, people would create ways of living that work better than anything we’ve seen for ages! ‘Anarchism’ simply means that they should be free to do so.
If all of this seems impossible, we must ask: “Why?” No one has ever tried to abolish domination, so this judgement cannot be based on historical experience. In fact, the *feeling* that domination is inevitable comes from domestication. Any animal trainer knows that the animal must understand who is in charge and that there’s *no* alternative. We’ve lived under human domestication for hundreds of generations now, so naturally we’re brought up knowing who is in charge and that there’s no alternative. But that is *PRECISELY* domestication: to accept our *captivity* and learn to live under the yoke!
The first and most important step is to believe that we *CAN* be free, and that we have *EVERY* right to throw off the yoke! The feeling that we are powerless, or that our nature is something other than ingenious and cooperative is domination’s most powerful tool against us!
- Chris Chew/FB
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Best Monologue Ever
“It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got.
Because the owners, the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy… the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.
Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.
They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want:
They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests.
That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that!
You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place! It's a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club.
By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don’t give a fuck about you….they don’t give a fuck about you… they don’t give a FUCK about you.
They don’t care about you at all… at all… AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s’ being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.
It's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
- George Carlin
Monday, February 8, 2016
How to Defeat Your Government
The idea that some sort of mass movement will rise and by force of its inferior arms throw off the yoke of oppression is the stuff of weak novels, not a real life strategy that has a chance of success. Those who buy into it and attempt implementation commit the biggest strategic failure: they have fooled themselves. Consequently, their enemy—the government—profits. It uses their failure to justify further tyranny and repression.
Click here to read the rest of the piece
Click here to read the rest of the piece
Thursday, February 4, 2016
About Statists
It does a DISSERVICE to
humanity to be too polite to such people. If someone is advocating mass
extortion, and feels perfectly comfortable doing so, and no one
ever condemns the immorality of their position, why should they ever
reconsider?
Trying
to politely "get along" with someone who is condoning violent
aggression--including against YOU--is fairly stupid, not to mention
counter-productive. "Hey, let's agree to disagree. Your opinion that I
should be forcibly robbed, and caged if I resist, is equally valid to my
opinion that neither of us should be robbed." Um, no. It isn't. Statists
SHOULD be made to feel as much guilt and shame as possible, because they are
advocating something destructive and immoral. If someone was advocating mass
murder, would you be all polite and civil to them, and talk as if their
position is acceptable? I hope not.
Just
as people condoning chattel slavery SHOULD have been insulted and condemned as
often as possible, so should those who advocate the widespread use of violence
to fund whatever bogus "programs" and "benefits" they want
their "government" god to hand out.
Not surprisingly,
"Beth" was offended that I had the gall to point out the blatant
immorality of what she condones, as well as the profound intellectual
dishonesty and cowardice she displays when she won't even ADMIT what she
advocates. She called my comments "ugly" and "hostile,"
because I said it's bad for her to push for the coercive robbery of tens of
millions of people. If you ask me, if someone is NOT "hostile"
against the advocacy of mass violence, but is gentle with the cheerleaders of
oppression, that is not doing anyone a favor... except tyrants.
h/t LR
Monday, January 4, 2016
Typing vs. Dying
More often than not, I find this author to be an articulate but irritable asshat because, most often, he chooses to write otherwise insightful observations in the most unnecessarily irritating and vulgar, manner. But every now and then he hits one right out of the park....
It's good to be zealous about a noble cause. It's also good to be intelligent. In "The Art of War," at no time does Sun Tzu say, "Just get really, really mad and start killing people!" In the movies, really believing in something, and being in the right, makes you magically win. In reality, it has pretty much no bearing on whether you will be successful. Contrary to what Hollywood implies, being one of the "good guys" doesn't make you bulletproof.
I totally sympathize with people who are outraged at the myriad of injustices perpetrated by "government" agents on a regular basis. And if your goal is to martyr yourself by righteously dying for what you believe in, have at it. But you might want to ponder whether what you are doing, or suggesting doing, would actually accomplish anything positive in the long run. I regularly get pro-freedom people bitching at me because I'm not "doing anything," and by that they mean that I'm not currently engaged in mortal combat with state mercenaries. According to them, the "brave" thing to do--and what I would do if I was a "real" anarchist--would be to have a shootout the next time a cop pulls me over for an expired registration sticker. But I'm not going to. Why not? Because while might does NOT make right, might DOES make results. And who has the "might" depends upon what people BELIEVE. If there is one slave who believes in freedom, and 99 who don't, standing up to the slavemaster is not going to turn out well for that one "uppity" slave. Sure, he would be in the right; he would be the good guy. He would also be the dead guy, and then slavery would continue.
Yes, there are some situations in which, regardless of outcome, I will forcibly resist state thugs. And I would probably die in the process. But my goal is not to "fight the good fight"; my goal is to WIN the good fight, permanently. And that requires changing MINDS. While it's 100% moral and righteous for people to defend themselves against aggressors, including those with badges, the real problem is people's belief systems, and you can't shoot a belief system. Violent conflict, even when totally justified and necessary, only deals with the SYMPTOMS of authoritarianism. Eradicating the underlying problem requires WORDS, not bullets. So when someone asks me, "Are you just going to sit there typing words, or are you going to go out and start shooting cops?!" For now, my answer is, I'm going to sit here typing words. The thousands of people who now believe in self-ownership and non-aggression got that way because other people SAID STUFF, not because other people shot at cops. When those thousands become millions, the state will die with a whimper, not with a bang.
- Larken Rose
Collapse
On September 4, 1993, President Bill Clinton spoke about the American Dream in a weekly radio address.
He told his audience that “in America, the idea is that if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll be rewarded with a good life for yourself and a better chance for your children.”
That’s what America used to stand for, and indeed much of the Western world. Freedom. Truth. Hard work and fair play. Building a better life.
But those ideals have all but faded now, displaced by a new normal of war, debt, government surveillance, freedom-killing bureaucracy, and a monetary policy that decimates responsible, hard-working people for the benefit of a tiny elite.
In his end-of-year commentary in the Washington Post, writer George Will summed up 2015 citing example after example of government overreach and excess--
- The value of property seized by the US federal government through Civil Asset Forfeiture exceeded the value of property stolen by burglars and thieves
- Florida police raided a Mahjong game played by four women aged 87 through 95 because they were *gasp* betting with their own money
- New Jersey police arrested a 72-year old retired schoolteacher for illegally carrying a firearm-- a 300-year old flintlock pistol he had purchased from an antique dealer
- A 9-year old in Florida was threatened with sexual harassment charges for writing love notes to a girl saying that her eyes sparkled like diamonds
George Will’s list, of course, barely scratched the surface of the tip of the iceberg.
2015 was the year that the middle class was officially vanquished in the Land of the Free, with its share of the population falling to just 50%.
US federal debt reached nearly $19 trillion in 2015, an increase of almost $750 billion during the calendar year.
The US government published over 80,000 pages of new regulations, making it nearly impossible to understand ‘the rules’, let alone play by them.
2015 also saw the passing of incomprehensibly terrible laws, including the USA Freedom Act, which restored many of the worst parts of the PATRIOT Act that were set to expire.
Then there was the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, passed at the end of the year, which officially turns the Land of the Free into a gigantic information-sharing surveillance state.
And of course the 2015 spending bill, which as of 3 days ago, allows the US government to strip you of your passport if they believe in their sole discretion that you owe them money.
These are hardly the actions of a solvent, trustworthy government, or a nation that’s on the right track.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this story doesn’t have a happy ending.
We can pretend that this time is different, that this country is different, that there is some special sauce that allows this government to run massive imbalances forever.
But deep down we all know the truth... and where this is headed.
I’ve read no shortage of apocalyptic predictions suggesting that 2016 is the year of the dollar collapse. Or the global economic collapse.
Or something else that invariably ends in the word ‘collapse.’
I don’t believe that. First, no one can credibly answer the question “when?”
Governments have surprised us all with their uncanny ability to kick the can down the road and delay the repercussions of their folly.
But I don’t really think the question of ‘when’ is relevant.
Nearly every major western government is insolvent. Entire monetary and financial systems are insolvent.
Governments have destroyed their own middle classes, giving rise to the greatest wealth gap that has existed since the Great Depression.
The risks are obvious. And you either stick your head in the sand and ignore them, or you take steps to reduce their impact on your life.
It’s like anything else-- if you live in a wildfire zone, you get fire insurance. And you’ll never be worse off for having good coverage on your home to protect your family.
Having a Plan B just makes sense, regardless of whether a major disaster occurs in 2016, next year, or never.
We can’t see the future, we can only see the risks today. Develop a Plan B that addresses those risks, and you’ll never have to worry about the future again.
h/t SB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)